I do disagree. When a state is governed in a de facto, if not official, manner by a extremist cult of a religion - a cult which promulgates aggression against everyone else simply due to the fact that they are "else," then the standards of logic by which you and I judge motivation go right out the window. At the core of its belief, Iran doesn't hate (for example) Israel because Israel represents a threat to their sovereignty - they hate Israel because it comprises a bunch of Jews (i.e., people who aren't Islamic followers of Khameini.)

"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later.""Of course! We never ask questions."

Okay. First of all, a state controlled by a religion is a Theocracy. There's been quite a lot of them in history, and they haven't proved to be any more quarrelsome than other forms of government. If anything, secular dictatorship are more warlike than Theocracies since there are no "supreme" moral authority to justify their power and they need to keep justify their autocracy one way or another.

Second of all, most religions all promulgate in one way or another a doctrine of moral or spiritual supremacy over all "else". Iran is not really that different in that regard, and has proved to be actually rather less warlike than a LOT of other countries in the region. Iran simply doesn't have the geography that supports an aggressive military mindset, since their population centers are sourrounded by mountain chains and their massive infantry armed forces would make any military venture just too costly to consider. They can afford to sit behind their borders and thus don't have a natural aggressive strategy to preserve their national security (compared to France, Germany or Russia, who are sitting on top of the Northern European Plains with absolutely no natural defenses on the way and thus developed a culture of aggressive warfare).

And I still believe Iran doesn't genuinely hate Israel that much, it's simply a useful rhetorical target to rally disgruntled Muslims in the Middle-East who lives under regimes that, while officially condemn Israel at every breath, don't actually do anything against it and is very content to let them stomp over the rather troublesome Palestinians (I am talking mostly about Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia here).

Iran has no actual reason to be threatened by Israel. But they do have a reason to be threatened by the Arabic gulf states if they are somewhat united (a Iraq-Saudi Arabia alignment occurred more often than you'd believe, with one acting as the financier and the other as the military arm), or a Global Power who have the power to topple their regime.

If you look at Iran's regional strategy in that lens, holding a strong rhetoric against Israel is a winning strategy to make the Sunni powers look bad in their population's eyes, since you actually act against Israel while the authoritarian regimes do nothing. Iranian leaders are crafty political people who haven't been selected as leaders based on their purity of faith or the blood they held, but on how cleverly they maneuvered within the clergy to reach high levels of power. Therefore, I somewhat expect them to be more rational in their decision making process than, Syria or Saudi Arabia.

You're still trying to apply logic to unreasoning hate, and it won't work. Iran doesn't hate Israel because of what Israel could do, or has done, or anything like that. Iran hates Israel for being Israel. There's no logic to it, and any protests by Iran over Israeli espionage are merely smokescreens to cover that already-extant hatred.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:disgruntled Muslims in the Middle-East who lives under regimes that, while officially condemn Israel at every breath, don't actually do anything against it and is very content to let them stomp over the rather troublesome Palestinians (I am talking mostly about Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia here).

Those countries aren't content to let Israel do anything... if you recall your recent (last 6 decades or so) history, you'll remember that they tried to steamroll Israel and subsequently had their asses handed to them. Like I said earlier - two old IDF Centurions vs. Syrian armored brigade... guess who won?

As to underestimating the sheer illogical hatred among all the different sects and cults over there - I believe that if you do so, you have the darkest-tinted sort of rose-colored glasses on.

"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later.""Of course! We never ask questions."

Mikey wrote:You're still trying to apply logic to unreasoning hate, and it won't work. Iran doesn't hate Israel because of what Israel could do, or has done, or anything like that. Iran hates Israel for being Israel. There's no logic to it, and any protests by Iran over Israeli espionage are merely smokescreens to cover that already-extant hatred.

Mikey wrote:As to underestimating the sheer illogical hatred among all the different sects and cults over there - I believe that if you do so, you have the darkest-tinted sort of rose-colored glasses on.

No need to start resorting to personal attacks on my character just because I don't see things the same as you do. It's one thing not agreeing with me, another to say I'm dangerously naive because my view of events is not as extremist as yours.

What kind of insight you genuinely have into the Iranian's leadership mentality? How do you know this hate actually exists, except in convenient rhetoric? (Convenient for Israelites, warmongers, Saudis and Iranians). Political realities and public declarations are two different things, not always supporting one another, yet existing in contradictory fashions.

So do tell me how you know what the Iranian political leaders really think. It's simply too easy, too convenient to start decrying the other party in a conflict as an absolute monster, the incarnation of everything that you should despise and fear, that there is NO WAY to reason with them. The people who want you to fear and hate them will repeat this again and again. Not because it's true, but because it supports their political agenda. War, hate and fear against Iran fits a lot of people's political agenda.

I prefer to have more reliable means of evaluating motivations based on universal principles. Principles that have proved time and again they always existed, even in the core of political or religious extremists. Catholics have sided with Protestants against the Pope. Communism have sided with America against other Communists. Because self-interest and self-preservation will always guided the path of nations, wherever that nation might have been situation. The most self-destructive behavior nations have adopted in history was done mostly out of an irrational desire to protect one's self and its future. Japan in WW2, Germany in WW1/2 are good examples.

Mikey wrote:Those countries aren't content to let Israel do anything... if you recall your recent (last 6 decades or so) history, you'll remember that they tried to steamroll Israel and subsequently had their asses handed to them. Like I said earlier - two old IDF Centurions vs. Syrian armored brigade... guess who won?

Yes, they are content to let Israel oppress the Palestinians. Initially, they saw Israel as a new power around the block, but a relatively new and isolated one, so the leaders of the 3 arab countries around Israel decided to try to gang up on them, their casu belli was to defend the Palestinian's rights. But the actual reason had more to do with claiming precious territory and putting down a potential alien power than any racial hatred.

Ever since, Israel has proven to be a relatively easy neighbor to have, specially since they know that, as mighty as their armed forces are, they couldn't withstand a 3-front war from Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel only won in the preceding conflicts by taking on its neighbors individually and relocating its armed forces onto the next.

At the moment, the Jordanians are more worried about the Palestinian's political power within their border and the influence of a democratic political movement like Fatah, which historically have caused a lot of trouble to their monarchy. Seeing the Palestinian getting their independant state could mean trouble to them on the long-run, so they'd rather see Israel remain strong and keep the Palestinians on a short leash, even if their official diplomatic line says else.

As for the Egyptian regime (previously to the Arab Spring, obviously. Although the military are still in power), they are wary of the Muslim Brotherhood and their offshot political party of the Hamas. Seeing an independent Palestinian state where Hamas would be in power right on their doorstep and possibly supporting the Egyptian MB is a nightmare scenario.

Effectively, Israel has become a convenient boogeyman for the Arab states to use as example of everything that is wrong, but they are quite happy with the way things are with the Jewish State, and with the exception of Syria, they don't support any subversive organisation aimed at hindering it.

So yes, in the past the Arab states tried to gang up on Israel, but recent history proved things changed. Regardless of what things are said, I think deeds speak louder than words, and deeds indicates that the regimes in power in the Middle-East of the past 10 years wants no beef with Israel.

(Although thinks might very well change in Egypt, that's a story to follow!)

First: Wow. When I start attacking you, you'll know it. As for now, it hasn't happened yet. I alleged naievete in you because that's what I saw - that's not an attack or an insult. You'll be able to tell the difference because if you're upset about what I feel I see, then one of my actual insults will make you cry. Until such time as I choose to descend from conversation to attacks, do try and keep up and take off your skirt.

Second: You want me to believe that Iranian actions aren't dictated by extremism and hate, like they say they are, but are dictated by some other logical motivation which the Iranians DON'T claim to have... and then tell me that I need to back my claim with evidence? You are twisted, and you've got the burden of proof completely backwards.

Third: Now, you're trying to convince me (A Jew of European ancestry, BTW) that the Crusades, the pogroms, the Holocaust, et alii were all motivated by patriotism and a sense of national security rather than bigotry and hate. Well, if you thought that saying you're naive was an insult, you're going to really hate this: You are talking directly and unmitigatedly out of your ass. Don't bother to reply, because if you really refuse to see the reality of things in such a manner than I have no further desire to even read what was previously an enjoyable conversation.

"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later.""Of course! We never ask questions."

Mikey, of course it was all due to patriotism, just as much as it was done in the name of God. Because we all know that both God and Flags preach the active use of torture, rape, murder, suicide and terror. In fact, its the very first Commandment that God gave to Moses. "Thou shalt act a total fool and defy my will and then thou shalt blame it on me because thy is too much a pussy to take the blame for your own actions."

By the way Solka, when an admitted (and rather open) racist like me laughes at someone for their judgement of other races... it should be a clue you need to rethink your line.

It's not even that subtle. Religion (or antipathy toward a number of religions) was given in every example cited above as an excuse. Proactive national security was not, ever. The only time I can think that it was used as such an excuse (partially correctly) was when Israel attacked Egypt before the latter completed their armor build-up along the Sinai, and perhaps when S' 13 conducted its anti-guerilla raids in the Lebanese southern interdicted zone in the 70's.

"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later.""Of course! We never ask questions."